Thread: Reagan, Bush Also Acted Alone on Immigration

Saturday, 15 Nov 2014 12:53 PM


AP - President Barack Obama's anticipated order that would shield millions of immigrants now living illegally in the U.S. from deportation is not without precedent.

Two of the last three Republican presidents — Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush — did the same thing in extending amnesty to family members who were not covered by the last major overhaul of immigration law in 1986.

There was no political explosion then comparable to the one Republicans are threatening now.

A tea party-influenced GOP is poised to erupt if and when Obama follows through on his promise. He wants to extend protection from deportation to millions of immigrant parents and spouses of U.S. citizens and permanent residents, and expand his 2-year-old program that shields immigrants brought illegally to this country as children.

"The audacity of this president to think he can completely destroy the rule of law with the stroke of a pen is unfathomable to me," said GOP Rep. Steve King of Iowa, an outspoken opponent of relaxing U.S. immigration law. "It is unconstitutional, it is cynical, and it violates the will of the American people."

Such strong feelings are common among congressional Republicans. GOP leaders warn that an executive order from Obama would "poison the well" and severely damage Republicans' willingness to work with the president during his final two years in office.

Some Republicans have even raised the possibility of impeachment.

Nearly three decades ago, there was barely a peep when Reagan and Bush used their authority to extend amnesty to the spouses and minor children of immigrants covered by the 1986 law.

In 1986, Congress and Reagan enacted a sweeping overhaul that gave legal status to up to 3 million immigrants without authorization to be in the country, if they had come to the U.S. before 1982. Spouses and children who could not meet that test did not qualify, which incited protests that the new law was breaking up families.

Early efforts in Congress to amend the law to cover family members failed. In 1987, Reagan's Immigration and Naturalization Service commissioner announced that minor children of parents granted amnesty by the law would get protection from deportation.

Spouses and children of couples in which one parent qualified for amnesty but the other did not remained subject to deportation, leading to efforts to amend the 1986 law.

In a parallel to today, the Senate acted in 1989 to broaden legal status to families but the House never took up the bill. Through the INS, Bush advanced a new "family fairness" policy that put in place the Senate measure. Congress passed the policy into law by the end of the year as part of broader immigration legislation.

"It's a striking parallel," said Mark Noferi of the pro-immigration American Immigration Council. "Bush Sr. went big at the time. He protected about 40 percent of the unauthorized population. Back then that was up to 1.5 million. Today that would be about 5 million."

But a lawyer who worked on the 1986 law and the 1990 follow-up as an aide to then-Sen. Alan Simpson, R-Wyo., said Bush's action wasn't controversial because it came after lawmakers had made it clear they were going to tackle the issue.

That's not the case now.

"Bush Sr. took the action that he did but it wasn't as if Congress was legislating anything to the contrary," said Carl Hampe of Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy. "What's different now is that there is no clear path to legislative relief for the class of beneficiaries for which the president's order would provide relief."

Obama's announcement could come as early as this coming week and cover as many as 5 million people. Like Bush, Obama is expected to extend deportation protections to families of U.S. citizens or permanent residents.

"It's clear that it's fully within his legal authority to issue these orders," said Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-Texas. He said Republicans 'didn't raise any objections in the past when Republican presidents issued similar orders. This is pure political theater."

Obama's anticipated action would not award legal status, but it would offer temporary protection from deportation and the possibility of obtaining a work permit.

"There's always some precedent for prosecutorial discretion," said Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz. "But this president would call tearing the Constitution into tiny little pieces in the White House prosecutorial discretion."

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, is stopping short of threatening to use Congress' power of the purse to thwart any executive action by Obama. Boehner's priority is to avoid a government shutdown. But he made it clear that Republicans will make Obama pay a price if he carries out his threat.

"Every administration needs this and needs that, needs all kinds of things," Boehner said Thursday. "You know, if he wants to go off on his own, there are things that he's just not going to get."

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/rea.../15/id/607556/

There weren't 20 million of them then. Time to enforce our laws - Presidents, regardless of party, have no right to make laws and this is a perfect example of the consequences of the slippery slope. I don't care who did it it is time for it to stop.

Rush Limbaugh

It really offends me greatly to see them tarnish Reagan this way, because that's what this is. Barack Obama is no Ronald Reagan in his dreams, and the idea that he is Ronald Reagan and is doing nothing different than Reagan did is as offensive as it can be to me.



Democrats and Drive-Bys Distort Reagan to Validate Obama's Executive Order on Amnesty

November 19, 2014


Windows Media

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: You know, I've always been of the impression, ladies and gentlemen, that the Democrat Party and the Drive-By Media and the American left really didn't like Ronald Reagan very much. I've always been under the impression that they thought Reagan was stupid. Maybe on a good day they'd call him an amiable dunce. But I've always been under the impression they had no respect for him. People that voted for Reagan were stupid. Reagan was dangerous. Reagan was gonna blow up the world. If it weren't for Gorbachev, who knows if there would even be a planet Earth today.
And yet it seems like whenever the Democrat Party needs to validate something that it plans to do, they always cite Ronald Reagan. They cite Ronald Reagan sometimes when they're gonna do something on economics. They cite Ronald Reagan -- I don't have all the times in front of me. I can't list them. But you know as well as I do that they frequently go back and cite Ronald Reagan.

Now, it may not be that they're doing so out of respect for Reagan. But it certainly is true to say that they are citing Reagan to validate what they're doing, and particularly when it comes to Obama's upcoming amnesty that looks like it's gonna be announced on Friday from Las Vegas.
Greetings, my friends. Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network. Happy to have you here. Telephone number, if you want to be on the program is 800-282-2882. And we check the e-mail, so if you want to send an e-mail, it's ElRushbo@eibnet.com.
It's just uncanny how often the Democrat Party, when they get in jam and when they know they're doing something that is untoward, when they know they're doing something that's not aboveboard, like this clearly is not aboveboard, they go back and they cite Reagan. "Well, Reagan did it."
It's not just to persuade conservatives. That's not why they're doing it. They know that Reagan actually has credibility with people. That's the dirty little secret. They know that Ronald Reagan was beloved and adored, and they know that, despite their best efforts, the American people have profound respect for Ronald Reagan.
Notice they don't cite Bill Clinton. They don't go back and they don't cite FDR. They don't go back and cite Truman very often. They always cite, they always go back to Ronaldus Magnus, and they are doing that to justify what Obama's going to do here with his executive order that will grant amnesty to five million illegal aliens. And they're out there claiming Reagan did this?
Reagan never did this.

Of course the AP and the Drive-By Media are falling right in line, writing stories that the White House is dictating, claiming, "Well, this is no big deal. Reagan did it. Bush did it. What are you crying about?" Well, if Reagan did it, how come we're only hearing about it on the eve of Obama doing it? If Reagan did this, then why did Obama once say he didn't have the power to do this? Remember that sound bite to some Spanish language TV network where he said he was not an emperor, or not a dictator? (imitating Obama) "We are a nation of laws. We have our law, and I unfortunately just can't do it with the stroke of my pen." Remember that?
Well, why didn't he say, "Wait a minute, yes, I can. I can be a dictator 'cause Ronald Reagan was, everybody knows." Why didn't he cite Reagan back then? Why didn't he cite Reagan last week, last year? Why let this controversy gin up? If Reagan did it why not say it at the outset and then shut up everybody.
Let's go to the audio sound bites. You'll see what I'm talking about here. Last night and this morning we have a little montage of how the left all of a sudden is once again in love with Ronaldus Magnus.
BECKEL: Ronald Reagan did exactly the same thing.
BEGALA: Presidents Reagan and Bush issued executive orders on immigration.
REID: Every president, 39 different times, Reagan, Bush.
KOSINSKI: Reagan allowed legalization for three million immigrants.
O'REILLY: President Reagan also took executive action allowing some illegals to stay in this country.
CUELLAR: A very eerie way when President Reagan was the president, he then took the executive order.
CATANESE: Pointing out to actions by two former Republican presidents, presidents Reagan and President George H. W. Bush.
RUSH: Okay. So you want to know who was in there? You want to hear the names? I think you should. The first up was Bob Beckel, and then The Forehead, Paul Begala, and then Dingy Harry, and then Michelle Kosinski, whoever that is, and then O'Reilly. O'Reilly said President Reagan also took executive action allowing some illegals to stay. He did not. Reagan never took executive action. This is a bald-faced flat-out lie. Not that it's gonna matter to anybody. But you know us here; we're concerned with the truth. Henry Cuellar, David Catanese. Those are the people in the sound bite that you just heard.
So if you're thinking, "Well, Rush, you're being so bold about this. What do you mean, Reagan didn't do it?" Well, there are a lot of people that are still alive who were in the Reagan administration, one of them was a man by the name of Jeff Lord, and Jeffrey writes for the American Spectator. He writes for Conservative Review, and he also occasionally puts together some pieces for our buddies at NewsBusters,

Brent Bozell. And he has a piece posted at Conservative Review entitled, "Ronald Reagan and Immigration: The AP Distortion."
Jeffrey worked in the Reagan administration. Now, his piece prints out to four pages, but I don't need that. What is the difference between Reagan and Obama? Reagan -- in fact, folks, I'm almost speechless here as I prepare to explain to you just how big the left is distorting this. Ronald Reagan signed a piece of legislation. It was the Simpson-Mazzoli Act. It was 1986. Congress debated and passed a law to grant amnesty to three million illegal immigrants, and Reagan signed it. They are saying that's exactly what Obama's gonna do. They are claiming that Reagan signing legislation, thereby making it legal, is the same thing as an Obama executive order. It breathtaking what they're trying to say here.
Reagan had a statute behind him. The statute was called Simpson-Mazzoli. The very law that Reagan had signed was signed after it was passed by Congress. What Obama is about to do is write a law, or rewrite a statue all by himself. You think that Gruber was exaggerating? They do think you're stupid. They really do believe that you are stupid. They really believe that they can make you think that Reagan signing a piece of legislation is identical to Obama writing and signing an executive order. "Well, Reagan did it. Well, technically Reagan granted amnesty, why are you complaining? Reagan granted amnesty, and George H. W. Bush, he granted amnesty, so Obama's not doing anything different."
Well, it's totally different because there is no legislation. The president cannot write law. The president can't make it up. Whether Congress is a bulwark or not. The Constitution does not say, "In case the Congress refuses to cooperate with the president, the president may, in that case, create his own law." It doesn't say that. And Obama knows it doesn't say that because he'd been out there on TV in previous years telling angry Hispanics that he's not a dictator -- ahem -- that he's not an emperor -- ahem -- and he can't do it. And that's been his excuse all along. He doesn't have the power to do it.
Now all of a sudden he does. And along comes the dictate from the White House to inform the media, "Hey, it's no different than what Reagan did." So there are two things here. The blatant lie in equating an executive order with signing legislation, and then having to cite Reagan to validate something a Marxist -- ahem -- a Democrat president is doing. It's just fascinating to watch all this. When he suspends deportations and when he imposes his own conditions on those suspensions, he's rewriting the law.
And that's what Obama is doing. And that violates his oath to enforce and uphold the law as it's written. The American people, the Congress, and the courts need to know that we have a president that will enforce the law. And when he says, "I will not enforce the law because I don't like it or because I'm impatient," that doesn't wash under the Constitution.
Now, there's some other things. Judge Napolitano is cited in this story by Jeff Lord in this fashion: "The judge goes on to say quite pointedly and specifically what is the Reagan-Obama difference. Every president since Eisenhower has suspended some deportations. President Reagan did it to 100,000 families. He did it on the basis of the 1986 statute enacted by the Congress. President H. W. Bush did it for 1.5 million people.
"Only about 350,000 took advantage of it, and it was based on his interpretation of the statute. President Obama does not reinterpret a statute here. He takes a statute and says, 'I'm gonna disregard it. I don't like it. It doesn't do what I want it to do. So I'm gonna give you a better one. I'm gonna set down a set of standards that I'd have written had I been the lawmakers.' But he's not the lawmaker. He's the law enforcer."
So Reagan and previous presidents when they suspended some deportations, did so under the guidelines of a statute that was in existence. They were not creating law. They were not adding to it. They were not subtracting from it. They were using it. Obama is doing nothing of the sort. It's just -- I don't know -- fascinating here to watch the effort (and it's pedal to the metal) underway here to try to equate Obama with Ronald Reagan.
I don't know. A little side issue or aspect of this is it really offends me greatly to see them tarnish Reagan this way, because that's what this is. Barack Obama is no Ronald Reagan in his dreams, and the idea that he is Ronald Reagan and is doing nothing different than Reagan did is as offensive as it can be to me. Because it's distorting Reagan. It is impugning Reagan.

And, of course, Obama doesn't have the respect and admiration from enough people to be able to get by with this on his own. If Obama were respected -- if he had a decent amount of respect, if it was thought that he had integrity, if Obama was indeed the charismatic/messianic figure people thought they had elected -- they wouldn't care why he was doing this. They would trust him.
They would accept what he's saying, 'cause they believed him, because he has integrity and honesty, the president doing the best in the world for the country, people would think that, but he doesn't own that because people do not think that of him. They don't think he's out for the best for the country. They don't think he's got honesty. They don't think so.
His approval number's down to 37% now, by the way. Have you seen that? Of course you haven't. Why am I asking? Of course you haven't! It's just out today, that Obama's approval is down to 37%. So he cannot do this on his own. He doesn't have the weight; he doesn't have the gravitas. He does not have the character to pull this off on his own.
He doesn't have the ability to say, "I'm gonna do this. It's legal. I'm President Obama. We're gonna do this because it's good for the country," and have everybody support it because they believe him. Because they don't support him, and they don't believe him. So he has to cite, for his own gravitas and credibility, Ronald Reagan -- and, in the process, distort, impugn and malign Reagan in order to stand on the same stage with him.
END TRANSCRIPT

Related Links

• FOXNews: Analysis: Dems claim Obama Exec Action Mirrors that of Reagan, Bush – Not Really
• Conservative Review: Ronald Reagan and Immigration: The AP Distortion - Jeffrey Lord
• The Atlantic: Reagan and Bush Offer No Precedent for Obama's Amnesty Order
• USAToday: Obama Team: Previous Presidents Did Immigration Orders

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/20...der_on_amnesty

The Reagan amnesty damaged the country and is unforgivable.

And nothing anyone says can fix that or make it better.

http://www.alipac.us/f9/sorry-libera...mnesty-314730/

What was done THEN is part of why we're were we are at today (20+ million illegals). Obviously everything we've done in the past has not worked. It's time we actually try a new approach to the situation ........... it's called full interior enforcement and a secured border!